Apple and Facebook were reportedly in negotiations for a year and a half before a deal for connectivity with Ping, Apple's fledgling music-centered social network, fell apart at the last minute.

Apple's iTunes team was in talks with Facebook for 18 months, and perhaps more, before the launch of Ping, a person with knowledge of the negotiations told Silicon Alley Insider. The report went on to cite industry insiders who said that Facebook can be "abrasive" when dealing with other large companies, comparing the social networking site to Microsoft in the mid- to late-1990s.

"From what we hear, this is the new sound of working with Facebook, which is now big enough -- and has such important data -- that it knows it's one of the most important companies in Silicon Valley," the report said.

After Ping was introduced earlier this month, Apple Chief Executive Steve Jobs revealed that the iTunes-based service is not tied in to Facebook because, he said, the website demanded "onerous terms." He said that Apple and Facebook talked about a variety of partnership opportunities, but could not come to a deal.

Author Dan Frommer speculated that Apple originally intended to have Ping serve as a service that would drive iTunes sales through the already-established Facebook network.

"This would have allowed Apple to get what it wanted out of the relationship - more iTunes and iPod sales -- without having to build a social network from scratch," he wrote.

After the talks apparently fell apart, Apple included a "Facebook Connect" login interface without a deal in place. Facebook then allegedly responded by blocking API access to Ping.

Despite the lack of Facebook integration, Ping managed to register more than a million users in its first 48 hours. The opt-in service is built in to the new iTunes 10, and can also be accessed from the iTunes application on the iPhone.

That was a pretty sleazy move by Apple. No deal, nothing on the table, and Apple integrates them anyways.

No wonder the magazine and newspaper industries are saying "Thanks, but no thanks". Apple seems to be accumulating enemies a WHOLE lot faster than it is enticing partners.

Right coz Facebook isn't sleazy, who's CEO refers to his company's users as dumb f#%ks and suckers.. Coz a company with complete disregard for privacy and who's CEO doesn't believe in privacy is not sleazy.

Right coz Facebook isn't sleazy, who's CEO refers to his company's users as dumb f#%ks and suckers.. Coz a company with complete disregard for privacy and who's CEO doesn't believe in privacy is not sleazy.

Just for the record, I said nothing one way or the other about Facebook.

FB is the number one app on the iPhone from what I have heard.
If I were Apple, I would create my own social network app and distribute it with every machine I sell. Apple controls the production and distribution so why not take advantage of this opportunity. They could link this to me.com, iTunes and iAds...

FB will have no choice but allow interoperability with this service then.

Think Big Apple. We are still waiting for that game changing event you mentioned a while back.

That was a pretty sleazy move by Apple. No deal, nothing on the table, and Apple integrates them anyways.

The Facebook Connect API is free to use by anybody. Apple was simply exercising this right. What is sleazy is that Facebook demanded extra requirements from Apple to use this API it gives freely out to other people.

Facebook has every right to block Apple. Someone needs to show Apple that they just can't push anyone around and get their way. That may have worked for Apple against AT&T and the music labels, but in today's age, Facebook is too powerful for Apple to knock around.

PS: I don't have a facebook account and never will. Same for twitter or any other garbage social networking product.

That was a pretty sleazy move by Apple. No deal, nothing on the table, and Apple integrates them anyways.

No wonder the magazine and newspaper industries are saying "Thanks, but no thanks". Apple seems to be accumulating enemies a WHOLE lot faster than it is enticing partners.

Typical post from you. high on the invective, short on the facts.

According to Facebooks terms of service, no one has to do anything until the daily hits exceed 100 million. Apple didn't have to do anything until then. It's Facebook that's being obstructive. They figured they had Apple over the barrel.

Facebook has every right to block Apple. Someone needs to show Apple that they just can't push anyone around and get their way. That may have worked for Apple against AT&T and the music labels, but in today's age, Facebook is too powerful for Apple to knock around.

PS: I don't have a facebook account and never will. Same for twitter or any other garbage social networking product.

FB is the number one app on the iPhone from what I have heard.
If I were Apple, I would create my own social network app and distribute it with every machine I sell. Apple controls the production and distribution so why not take advantage of this opportunity. They could link this to me.com, iTunes and iAds...

FB will have no choice but allow interoperability with this service then.

Think Big Apple. We are still waiting for that game changing event you mentioned a while back.

Ah, it makes sense now. Apple wanted Facebook to change its color from blue to reflective silver to match the UI of the rest of the iTunes interface. Or maybe it was the other way around. Evidence: Look at the BLUE iTunes icon! No color change, no deal, from either party!

Facebook has every right to block Apple. Someone needs to show Apple that they just can't push anyone around and get their way. That may have worked for Apple against AT&T and the music labels, but in today's age, Facebook is too powerful for Apple to knock around.

PS: I don't have a facebook account and never will. Same for twitter or any other garbage social networking product.

Right, because a brief article based on anonymous sources that doesn't get into any specifics is more than enough information to weigh in belligerently about who's pushing around whom.

They spoke of the sayings and doings of their commander, the grand duke, and told stories of his kindness and irascibility.

FB is the number one app on the iPhone from what I have heard.
If I were Apple, I would create my own social network app and distribute it with every machine I sell. Apple controls the production and distribution so why not take advantage of this opportunity. They could link this to me.com, iTunes and iAds...

FB will have no choice but allow interoperability with this service then.

Think Big Apple. We are still waiting for that game changing event you mentioned a while back.

Yeah, I think eventually Ping will eat Facebooks lunch.

I'm on it now and it definitely sucks in many ways, but it has great potential. Apples iTunes database is full of high end consumers. I wouldn't be surprised if five years from now FaceBook is like MySpace (for low class users), and Ping is the more desirable upscale social network.

Ping has an agenda. It wants you to spend more time in iTunes and spend more money in the store. A good social network has really only one agenda: to help you connect with others (hence eyeballs, hence ad revenue). Ping thus far is doing a very poor job at connecting me to anyone. I've been signed up since it launched and thus far, I have only one connection. Ping isn't suggesting more friends to me. I have over 300 FB friends, and I don't even have email addresses for most of them, so I have no way to reconnect with these people on Ping. I've been wrong in the past, but my prognostication is that until and if Ping gets FB integration, it will be a low-traffic network, and ultimately curl up and die.

Ping has an agenda. It wants you to spend more time in iTunes and spend more money in the store. A good social network has really only one agenda: to help you connect with others (hence eyeballs, hence ad revenue). Ping thus far is doing a very poor job at connecting me to anyone. I've been signed up since it launched and thus far, I have only one connection. Ping isn't suggesting more friends to me. I have over 300 FB friends, and I don't even have email addresses for most of them, so I have no way to reconnect with these people on Ping. I've been wrong in the past, but my prognostication is that until and if Ping gets FB integration, it will be a low-traffic network, and ultimately curl up and die.

Help you connect with others, have you look at Ads, and of course, to sell your personal information. How do you think they make money? It's the same way Google makes it.

Ping has an agenda. It wants you to spend more time in iTunes and spend more money in the store. A good social network has really only one agenda: to help you connect with others (hence eyeballs, hence ad revenue). Ping thus far is doing a very poor job at connecting me to anyone. I've been signed up since it launched and thus far, I have only one connection. Ping isn't suggesting more friends to me. I have over 300 FB friends, and I don't even have email addresses for most of them, so I have no way to reconnect with these people on Ping. I've been wrong in the past, but my prognostication is that until and if Ping gets FB integration, it will be a low-traffic network, and ultimately curl up and die.

This is terribly naive.

Facebook doesn't have an agenda? Facebook just want's to connect you with stuff you're interested in? What a laugh!

Ping might be rudimentary at the moment, but I bet you in the end run it will be more open that Facebook is. Ping might have selling music as it's primary goal, but it's fairly upfront about that. You'd have to be an idiot not to see that this is the primary purpose of Ping right now.

Facebook on the other hand is purposely and resolutely duplicitous in almost everything it does. They had to be dragged kicking and screaming to the point where they even allowed you any privacy. They still haven't made it easy, in fact they have been purposely obfuscatory. The entire Facebook UI *reeks* of confusion and deception. At least Ping is transparent.

Right, because a brief article based on anonymous sources that doesn't get into any specifics is more than enough information to weigh in belligerently about who's pushing around whom.

It's common knowledge that Apple loves to push around companies. They ran into a company that is far more important than them on a social level and got slapped in the face. Apple needs to come off their high horse at times.

It's common knowledge that Apple loves to push around companies. They ran into a company that is far more important than them on a social level and got slapped in the face. Apple needs to come off their high horst at times.

Help you connect with others, have you look at Ads, and of course, to sell your personal information. How do you think they make money? It's the same way Google makes it.

Like I said "(hence eyeballs, hence ad revenue)"
My point is, the reason I go on Facebook is to connect with my friends who live all over the place, and catch up on what they're doing. Ping doesn't let you do that at all. You can't customize your homepage. You can't post anything not related to the iTunes store. Its a poor social network and hardly even qualifies as such. It would have been sort of cool as an FB-add-on, but as a stand-alone thing it's not, at least thus far.

If anyone's interested in music-related social networking, try the Last.FM module for FB. It even integrates into iTunes and will publish what you're listening to, regardless of whether it is available in the iTunes store. Now, that's how it should be done. http://www.last.fm/

I guess Apple was hoping the FB-connect thing would fly. It seemed like there was brinkmanship going on right up to the release. Its weird seeing Apple pull a "Palm-Pre" sort of maneuver.

Facebook doesn't have an agenda? Facebook just want's to connect you with stuff you're interested in? What a laugh!

Ping might be rudimentary at the moment, but I bet you in the end run it will be more open that Facebook is. Ping might have selling music as it's primary goal, but it's fairly upfront about that. You'd have to be an idiot not to see that this is the primary purpose of Ping right now.

Facebook on the other hand is purposely and resolutely duplicitous in almost everything it does. They had to be dragged kicking and screaming to the point where they even allowed you any privacy. They still haven't made it easy, in fact they have been purposely obfuscatory. The entire Facebook UI *reeks* of confusion and deception. At least Ping is transparent.

You're totally wrong about them 'being dragged kicking and screaming to do anything.' They've always had privacy controls. The issue was how easy it was to use them. The problem is how fine-grained control do you want to give people? There are a lot of dimensions to the issue. FB would like people to keep things relatively open and not succumb to paranoia, because if things are too locked down no one can find each other, no one can see each others posts. Its a delicate balance. FB erred on the side of giving people too much control. You could set everything, and scope it down in some very sophisticated ways. Privacy advocates complained that it was too confusing. Maybe so. I appreciated the flexibility.

And yes, FB DOES connect me with people. Its a great site. They're NOT trying to sell me things. They generate ad revenue the same way Google does, as I alluded to in my original post.

Ping is more like Amazon's reviewer community with a little connectivity thrown in. Its completely related to commerce. Its like "Walmart Buddies" or something. That's not a social network.